The goal of Foundation for Fighting Fundamentalist Religion is to undermine the POWER of fundamentalist religion. As I asked on another thread: Is that a realistic goal?

I think "realistic goals" is not an option. It may not be quite this serious. However, I think planet survival is closely related to getting rid of the POWER of fundamentalist religion. In other words, if We want this planet to survive for future generations, Fundamentalist Religion MUST GO.

But HOW????

[align=center]HOW DO WE GET A FUNDY TO CHANGE HIS/HER MIND


[/align]
Ideas, opinions, and stories are invited.

I think it's got to be dialogue.

A very close friend of mine was killed in London last year by a bomb set by Islamic fundamentalists.

I myself was at Glasgow airport a few weeks ago when a young radicalized Muslim (a Doctor, believe it or not!) drove a van full of explosives into the Airport terminal.

I wasn't hurt, but it certainly brings it home to one what fundamentalist thinking can do, not only to others, but also to the Fundy him/herself.

Since then I have been part of a group of Christians, Muslims, Agnostics and Atheists who meet together to talk, discuss - to get to know each other.

I firmly believe that this - dialogue - is the way forward,

What do you think?


Jen



Jen

You must be in the UK. I am not so familiar with fundamentalist religion in the UK. Here in North America fundamentalist Christians attack abortion clinics, forbid the teaching of evolution in public schools, ostracize (and sometimes treat violently) homosexuals and nonreligious people, and they hinder scientific research that would help save lives. They use the War on "Terrorism" (I think the war is a greater terror than the isolated Muslim attacks) to impose their fundamentalist beliefs on Muslims. Dialogue is not getting us anywhere in North America.

What kind of dialogue are you using in the UK? What kind of things have you tried? What success have you had? Does your group have a website or blog or forum where I can see your activities, mission statement, goals, and accomplishments?

Two months after my friend was killed by fundamentalists, in August 2005, a new mosque in the area where I live opened its doors to the public. Some of the friends and relatives (among them Mums and Dads whose children had been killed)of the victims went to this open day and introduced ourselves, explaining our circumstances. We said that we were there to extend a hand of friendship, and to make sure that they knew that we did not blame the Muslim community for the actions of the fundamentalists . This turned out to be a cathartic experience for all of us, and we have maintained contact. We are very hopeful that this will go a little way to promote good relations between the Muslim population and the wider community.

This is one of the more informal groups of which I am a member. No website, blog or forum, I'm afraid, RSM. Just a group of people meeting in each other's homes, getting to know each other - becoming friends.


Jen

Mmmm. I don't think we can 'get' a fundy to change his mind at all, unless we know the reasons for his holding to his fundamental beliefs.

Mariel

My personal opinion is that the fundamentalist is afraid of God and hell. Therefore the beliefs must be held onto no matter what happens. Someone suggested to me in personal email that it's the moderate Christians who are the real problem. Why? 1. They are a large population in the US. 2. They support the fundamentalists in their extreme goals.

I suspect that they do this because they feel somewhat guilty for not holding such extreme (and pious) goals themselves. Or perhaps they sympathize with people trying to live out their convictions in a hostile environment. Christians tend to believe they are a persecuted minority even though they're not. Thus, they see society as a hostile place.

I think it's a complex problem. Jesus said whoever follows him will be persecuted. Well, if Christians cannot find any persecution, they are obviously not following Jesus and that is simply not acceptable. I think that may be one reason they tend to slap the label persecution onto simple disagreement with their beliefs.

Dialogue is good, but how to get the fundies involved? Liberal Christians are usually open to discussion, but fundies may avoid it in fear of being "led astray". Some might join pretending to want dialogue, but actually wanting to preach and convert. It's possible that if you can attract some fundies to such meetings (even the ones who are going to proselytize) there will be a few who will change. But I think it's like the saying about addicts: they have to want to change. There has to be that spark of questioning, curiousity, doubt in their deepest being. We can't force it on them, and if that seed isn't in them, the fundies won't show up for such a meeting.

The idea of moderate Christians supporting extreme fundamentalist goals is news to me. My idea of moderate would be someone who may hold orthodox theology and some conservative views, but doesn't believe in pushing them on others by force. For example, a moderate Christian may believe homosexuality is a sin, but not approve of violence against gays, or passing laws making their actions criminal.

Terms like liberal, moderate, and fundamentalist can have wide meanings, depending on who is defining the words. So there may be some within the moderate camp that leans to the fundy side, and are unwilling to condemn them, while other moderates will have little to do with fundies. Even among fundies, there are many disagreements, with some groups claiming all truth and condemning other fundamentalists as backsliders, heretics or liberals. This is good, as it shows the fundamentalists are not as united as they sometimes seem to be.

The problem with moderate and liberal Christians is that they don't speak out against their fundamentalist brethern like they should. There are some who do, but you don't hear that much about them. I am not sure if that's because liberals/moderates are in smaller numbers, or do not receive the press that fundies do--in America, at least. There have been some challenges in the news lately. Some evangelical leaders are speaking out against political influences in the church, looking at the problem of global warming, and recognizing the need for assistance to the poor beyond the typical fundy advise of "Get Jesus and get a job, you lazy sinner". Sorry I don't have any links available, but I have read more stories lately that show some Christians are questioning extreme fundy ideas. I hope they continue to speak out, because if the liberals and moderates don't, then the writer of your email may be right. The liberals and moderates will then have to share the blame of whatever damage is caused by the fundamentalists.

I asked for definitions but have not heard back. I suspect I would just label them all fundies and be done with it, but I don't know enough about the situation to make that judgment.

ExCOG, you won't be hearing back from Jen. Ever since we first met on another forum in January 2006 her one goal in life seems to have been to make life miserable for me. She has been stalking me all over the internet and got me kicked off two forums. I let her one post stand here because it seemed to have some merit; I thought maybe she was turning over a new leaf. However, subsequent posts proved me wrong. I deleted them.

Despite her objections to it, I would classify her as a fundie Christian of the type who shows up only when intending to evangelize or in some other way make life miserable for others.

Given the large number of people who have looked in on this thread, quite a few people beside myself must be interested in the topic. Here are a few ideas I have picked up:

1. If you can create a situation where the fundy's immediate family is affected he/she may change his/her view on an issue formerly considered totally unquestionable. For example, my mother used to talk negatively about men who married women several years younger than themselves. However, none of her own children got married. Then her fifth, a son, finally when he was in his twenties started dating a women five years younger than himself. Never again did I hear her denigrating men for marrying younger women. He married within the church, so this was not a religious matter. However, it showed to me how a person does change her mind about things previously considered negatively.

Likewise, when I left their church for a much more modern one they were forced to consider that there might be legitimate Christians outside the horse and buggy communities. Most of my family seemed to have come to terms more or less with my change to the modern church. Had I left it at that, things might have been okay. However, in order to be true to my personal convictions, I deconverted a year ago. This was more than they could cope with. I am unable to cope with their judgmental letters at this point and have stopped responding. Whether or not this rift can ever be healed is unknown at this point of my life. However, I believe that having a family member who is an unbeliever will have a bigger chance of convincing them that unbelievers are not necessarily evil than if they had only seen strangers.

Most of us probably know of cases where minister's children were allowed to do things the rest of us had not been allowed. And when the minister allowed his own kids to do it he had to let everyone else do it, too. However, he had not let others do it before his own kids were in the situation. Thus, while the fundy may be unaffected by logic of the head, he/she seems to be affected by logic of the heart. Yet the percentage of fundy families who will disown family members, even divorce spouses, when they deconvert is too high. It cancels even logic of the heart as a reliable means of getting a fundy to change his or her mind.

2. The most reliable means is to get an authority figure to convince his church that the Bible says so, and has been saying so since time immemorial but we were too blind to see it. However, even that is not a hundred percent reliable. If it is too drastic a change, the congregation will silence the minister or excommunicate the person who tried instituting the idea.

3. Compromise occurs to me but I am not sure if that is even a viable option because the very sound of the word would smack of, well, compromise. And who wants to compromise his or her eternal salvation?

Any other ideas anyone??? Or comments on these ideas???

As you know, it's fairly easy to sign up to these forums. And when you have signed up you can post your ideas. I keep changing it in an effort to find the best means but I think all you have to do is follow the instructions. A few people have signed up since I last made any changes in the sign-up process and I didn't have to activate accounts. So it must be fairly easy and straight-forward. So long as I don't get serious spammers I'll probably leave it like this.

So yeah, this was about changing the minds of fundies.

In my reading I came across an idea about the inner workings of the fundamentalist mind that are scary. Here is what the fundamentalist hero says about belief, God, and Bible:



I guess he is not looking for evidence outside the Bible. He sees the Bible as the source of facts for the theologian just like nature is the source of facts for the scientist (he says this quite often in his writing, though not in this quote). In 1870, perhaps he cannot be faulted for seeing the Bible this way. However, I do fault him for not seeking evidence outside the Bible. Throughout his book he describes the agonies and evils of deists and atheists. Be does not accept the possibility that they might be onto something. I fault him for that, as I do fundamentalists today.

However, that is what we are up against. A mind that has been made up. A mind that will not consider alternatives. A mind that, for no reason other than that the Bible says so, will not even ask whether the religion is right. They will blame Satan before they will take personal responsibility for their thoughts, beliefs, and questions.

They are petrified--scared--of even asking the question. For some reason they think God cannot withstand truth. For some reason they think their own minds are too incapable of perceiving truth when they see it. Yet they are quite capable of navigating through the sophisticated maze of life in Western society where most of the energy comes from heaven and under the earth (as in satellites and electric cables).

They are not afraid of the personal computer. Yet it resembles the human brain more than any other tool in common use. If humans can manufacture live brains, why would an Intelligent Designer be required to manufacture the universe? Look at what water and wind can do in and of themselves. Consider what might happen over the course of countless thousands of years. Why could "chance" not have caused it???

Will the fundamentalists ask this question?
No.
Why not?
Because.

I am obsessed with this topic! Just now I was writing up a mission statement for this project. Actually, I was just fixing up an old post for the job. Well, I got to the part about Thomas Edison not giving up when he was looking for something that would burn for a light bulb but not burn up. He wouldn't give up just because he had already tried a thousand things that didn't work.

Likewise, I think there MUST be a way to get fundamentalists to change their minds. Because yes, getting a fundamentalist to change his or her mind is key to fighting the fundamentalist religion. I know this because this thread was posted only 16 days ago and there have been 158 hits. One hundred and fifty-eight! That is more than any other thread on the entire forum ever got in much more time. The only other thread that comes even close is the one on Updates on the New Forums Crisis. It's in the 130s, I think.

This tells me that this thread is of intense interest to very many people. I think it is of such intense interest for the simple reason that it is the single most serious problem all of us face with our fundamentalist families, friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Talking with them does absolutely no good. Not a single shred of good! We all know it. We all tell each other about it. We all get extremely exasperated and frustrated and simply mad about it. But we keep banging our banged-up heads against the same old brick wall just because it has to work. But it doesn't.

So was does work?

When we know that, the evils of fundamentalist religion will be on their way out the door.

No answers yet but one more case that doesn't work. Education. If you've been reading all the new posts on here you will have seen it. It's James from the UK. He's nearly earned his PhD. His criteria for a "serious" scholar apparently is whether or not a person agrees with him--not what kind of academic credentials they hold. Tom Harpur, for example, holds a PhD from a reputed school. Lots of Christian scholars don't respect him because they don't like his message. James is but one of them. I don't understand this habit of killing the messenger because they hate the message. I think if we hate the message we should look at what it is about the message that we hate so much.

The thing I don't like about James's website is that he pretends to refute the argument from nonreligion but he ridicules it rather than refutes it. Ridicule says "You're stupid for thinking that way." Refutation says, "I think you're wrong and this is why." Being wrong in someone else's opinion does not have to be a bad thing. Disagreement does not have to be a bad thing. Ridicule is a bad thing. It is not constructive. It "kills the enemy" rather than help and heal the world.

Originally posted here




Rev R, I agree completely with you on this. My question is, in which millennia do you expect them to drop the conversion agenda and to come to the table as open-minded rational equals rather than superior to us heathens? The way I see things at the moment--given the nature of Christianity, when they drop the conversion agenda, they cease to be fundamentalist Christians. They may still be orthodox Christians but not fundamentalist.

I may have missed something but here is a list of the basic items orthodox Christians believe:

* Affirm creation by God.
* Affirm Bible as Word of God.
* Affirm Jesus as Son of God.
* Affirm salvation through death and resurrection of Jesus.
* Affirm End of World/Time when all humanity will be resurrected.

So far as I know, in addition to the above, the following are tests of membership for most fundamentalists:

* Belief that creation happened in some version of the six-day doctrine.
* Belief that all the key figures in the Bible such as Noah, Moses, Joshua, Paul, and the other disciples were historical people. (I don't remember ever hearing of a person who did not believe otherwise, but I would guess anyone questioning these people's historicity would come under serious suspicion and scrutiny.)
* Belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ
* Belief in the historicity of Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.
* Confession of one's sinfulness and experience of the new birth
* Belief in salvation through faith in Jesus
* Belief in a literal heaven and a literal hell (resurrection of the dead is presupposed), the belief that all who do not trust in the shed blood of Christ for their salvation will go to hell. This includes all who never heard the name of Jesus due to the misfortune of birth. Hence the missionary fervor.

This is their version of Christian love--the responsibility to their fellow humans to keep them from dropping into hell. Cain asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Obviously, he was. Ezekiel clearly demonstrates that yes, we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. Jesus commands his followers to "go into all the world" and "preach to all creatures," and tells about how the rich man ended up in hell because he did not do all in his power to help the poor; in other words, works do count. Paul instructs his people to admonish deviants in order to bring them back to the fold. Revelations has the tribulation to give sinners one last chance to repent and escape hell.

That is the way fundamentalists understand the Bible. This is not the orthodox understanding. Do you see why I ask in which millennia you expect the fundies to drop their conversion agenda? Hell as a lake of fire is more real to them than anything that can happen to them in this life on this earth. That is the level of conviction we are dealing with. That is why people will compromise their very lives rather than displease their god.

Back to their two-sidedness. Herein lies the secret, I think. In their fervor to save souls from the furnace of hell they will forgo anything and everything, including love of family and friends. Nothing can ever compare in importance to eternal welfare of souls. In order to save souls, they must demonstrate love, and they do feel genuine human feeling insofar as they dare to allow themselves to feel it. One's natural human love for one's child or friend or other relative must never over-ride one's concern for that person's soul's salvation.

I found something in the Westminster Catechism (that Hodge uses as foundational for his faith) that chills me to the bone and it's supported by Scripture. Here's a cut and paste from my paper as it stands at the moment:
Charles Hodge operates by the Westminster Larger Catechism (ST I:376). He obeys its command not to be “bold and curious searching into [the Lord’s] secrets (Larger Catechism, Answer 105). The Proof Text for this portion is Deuteronomy 29:29 as follows:

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children forever, to observe all the words of this law.[1]


[1] All Scripture reference is taken from the Revised Standard Version unless otherwise indicated.

Westminster Larger Catechism. Online at http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html accessed Sept. 12, 2007

Apparently, asking questions about truth is biblically condemned. I did not know that but I do know that a lot of my family seriously disprove of my penchant for questioning absolutely everything. Consequently, some time ago I did what must appear from my sister's perspective as writing my own death sentence. I cannot have the family writing me all those guilt trip or conversion letters. Finally I called my one sister and argued that she should trust the Holy Spirit to convert me. I assume she saw right through that trick--it was a way to use her religion to get her off my back. In effect, I was writing my own death sentence. Had she agreed to go with me through all the intellectual gymnastics necessary to understand my convictions I would have gladly helped her to understand, but none of the family was listening to me anymore. They had already written me off many months earlier.

All they had needed to know was that I was investigating other religions, more specifically paganism. I had one meeting with one individual and I read about two or three books. It was not right for me but I never told them. I felt they did not deserve to know. They had already written me off as an atheist. Never mind that Paganism is not atheism. I still believed in a god...I wasn't sure. But not in the God that led the Israelites out of Egypt, who they believe is also the Father of Jesus Christ. This wasn't good enough for them.

But is this really about religion, or is there something more going on here? Back in March this year, our mother died. In their religion, based on their understanding of the Bible, unbelievers cannot eat at the same table as the preacher for a formal meal at a funeral. This meant that I could not eat with my siblings for my own mother's funeral. I was already hurting far too much because of all the rejection; there was no way I could attend the funeral if I was not allowed to eat with my siblings. I did go to the viewing twice. The second time, my brother crossed all cultural boundaries and hugged me. In our culture, adult men and women don't hug outside of marriage. He asked me, "Can we look forward to seeing you tomorrow?" I asked, "Can I eat with you?" He broke down and cried. He said something about "You know the rules about church membership..." I informed him that I had not revoked membership at a certain church I had attended about eight years earlier. On that technicality the deacon allowed me to eat with my brothers and sisters and father.

I was at the funeral and observed family dynamics with Mom absent. Being a stroke victim, Dad was in a wheelchair and my brother made sure Dad was near the coffin in the churchyard as the congregation filed past, according to custom. Normally, the bereaved family stands near the coffin for this event. For some reason, only my brother and Dad and I were near the coffin. The rest of the entire clan stayed back. They were in the general area, but there was an open space between them and us. Not even my brother's wife and children were with him. I am the only atheist in the entire clan so far as I know. All the others of our immediate family are members in good standing of the church into which all of us were born. I don't know what caused the division or why.

I did discipher over the following days and weeks that my siblings, and perhaps even the deacon and his wife, were not all of the same mind as to whether or not I should have been allowed to eat with the family. At stake is obedience to God as they understand it, keeping the church pure and undefiled, being a light to the world, not to mention being guilty of my "unbelief" by association, i.e. eating at the same table with me, whom they consider a sinner.

It's in 1 Cor. 5. The sin Paul is talking about is a man having sex with his father's wife. I am not having sex with my parent of the opposite sex, and they know that. Verse 11 is more inclusive and lists the following sins: sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. He says not to eat with such a person. I don't do those things. In Verse 12 he says not to judge those who are outside; I am outside but they still judge me. And they judge me for not believing the right things. Like I mentioned above. It is their turf and I have to play by their rules.

All of this to show how absolute are their rules, how uncompromising their beliefs, even when it comes to closest kin and loved ones. Their understanding of God rules. And I suspect sometimes they get a bit confused whether it is God or their own prejudices. They are, after all, very much human beings with human feelings. I think when humans subject their true feelings to superior motives, these feelings go underground and resurface in ways quite contrary to otherwise noble intentions. Thus we get all the hatreds and jealousies and backbitings and infightings ad infinitum.

Sorry, this got rather long. It's just that I've been thinking on some of this stuff recently. Trying to make sense of some really painful stuff.

Yes, but...can you force anyone to change? If you had come to me a few years after I thought I was "born again" and tried to deconvert me, I would have been very resistent. I would have thought that satan was tempting me. The experience no doubt would have caused me to hold more tightly to my beliefs. If there is any attempt to change or educate fundies through what they perceive as force (laws requiring students learn about evolution, stronger support for public schools over private, withdrawing tax-exempt status of churches, etc.) there would be a huge backlash. Fundy leaders would cry "Persecution!" and use it to whip up their followers into a frenzy.

Actually, you are not going to be able to fight fundamentalism through any type of law, societal pressure or even education. Some people will be influenced by these and other attempts to reach fundamentalists, but many won't because they have a personality that draws them to such totalitarian beliefs. Even if the Christian version of fundamentalism were wiped out, another form of fundamentalism would arise. In other words, fundamentalism will always be with us, because there will always be people who fall into that catagory. The ones who leave fundamentalism did so because at heart we didn't have that personality. We grew up in a family who taught us that belief, so we were part of it for awhile. Or, we went through a personal crisis and didn't have the knowledge to deal with it, so reached out to what at the time seemed like would help us. Or we were shamed into it through family or cultural expectations. But some will always remain, because they feel that they need that control, that strictness, in their lives. I have been reading some articles on the connection between fundamentalism and authoritarianism lately; I plan on starting a new thread on the topic soon.

So to me, the question of how to get a fundy to change his/her mind, would be reworded to: how do we discover who within fundamentalism have the ability to walk away? Who are those that are more likely to question, to sit down and examine alternatives, to resist just playing "follow the leader"? Those are the people we need to find, and not waste our time on those with authoritarian personalities.